Thank God for the Death of the UN !

For globalization to work, America must not be afraid to act as the almighty superpower that it is ...the hidden hand of the market will never work
without the hidden fist - McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world
safe for Silicon Valley is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

-Columnist Thomas Friedman, New York Times, March 28, 1999

Thank God for the death of the UN
Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order

Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not
the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to
bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the
better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.

As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam's rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international
community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against "regime change". In the spirit of postwar reconciliation
that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue
states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.

A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and
high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing
Saddam's regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council
can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN's own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies
isn't good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, "anarchy", rather than
international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.

This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria,
Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council,
how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the
primacy of "order" versus "anarchy".

But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the
League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on
Nazi Germany.

In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject
results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe
liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, NATO. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of
the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the
Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.

Facing Milosevic's multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to
save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN
action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.

This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry
the war to the territories from which it is launched. This will sometimes require that we use force against states that harbour terrorists, as we did
in destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others. Whatever hope there is
that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted.
The chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with
coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope
for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.

Richard Perle is chairman of the defence policy board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.
This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in this week's Spectator.

This is an article we were asked to read and comment about a month back in my philosophy class, though it might do some justice here on ATS.

Its quite interesting, that Richard Perle tends to think that without the US of A, the world would be in utter anarchy, and the United Nations has
become quite impotent.

This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in this week's Spectator.

It's very hard to comment on something that has been edited. You need to try and track down the unedited version so you can judge if anything has
been changed and whether this would give any of the words a different context.

This article is a perfect example of how the real New World Order is being promoted, by promoting a false version to be concentrated on and knocked
down. Everyone thinks the U.N is the start of the new world order, or some hypothetical far left conglomerate of blah blah blah...

Why?

Well, first boring point; how can anyone believe the U.N is the start of the NWO? The U.N is a loose amalgamation of countries, most of which hate
each other, which was formed primarily to stop another world war. The premise was they could use the threat that if one country went to war against
another member, the rest would hit them over the head with a wet fish and send them to their room. The funny thing is that the people who continually
point out that the U.N couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery are the same that think its going invade the U.S and make everybody eat croissants.
And did I point out that they all bloody hate each other?

Most of the people in the New World Order forum believe this or the Communists (yeah, those military, financial giants) or aliens or whatever is going
to take over and it's pretty much pointless saying otherwise in there, so I don't bother.

I'm sure you've all seen a magician. Think slight of hand. He'll take your eye off what he's doing by obvious distractions; talking rubbish,
flamboyant hand gestures, whatever. Then BAM! How’d your hat change into a goldfish? Wow. That’s what this is.
Have you ever noticed where the propaganda versions of the U.N or communists etc being the NWO come from? Take a closer look at the spectator magazine
that article comes from, that'll give you a clue.

What is the real new world order? The real new world order is not going to drive tanks down your street. It's not going to declare martial law. It's
not going to put everybody into camps. It doesn't have to, it already has you. The NWO is being formed through, for, and by finance. They already own
the media. Six companies at maximum own all the media outlets large enough to matter in the U.S. For the world, it's ten. Many of you know that big
business, primarily in the form of the military industrial complex, owns western government. Another small amount of companies owns what you eat, and
this is one of the most noticeably aspects of it as it come right to your home. For example, you've heard the controversy over Wal Mart practices?
Similar to many other supermarkets. They move into a small town, build a store at the outskirts. What happens? The towns businesses die and a large
part of the people end up working for Wal Mart. Wal Mart then owns the town. Wal Mart then owns you. That's a small example. There’s
mortgages, loans, credit cards etc. Too much to go into, but through finance, they own you. Imagine for a minute what's happening in countries where
they don't have to be as subtle. The world is being divided into class, not class as in social standing but financial. The driving force is predatory
capitalism, the driving force is America. Let’s be serious. The power lies in the money and the power of the money lies with America. If you think
leftists control world finance you need your head checked.

The NWO is PNAC, the WTO and Globalization lead by American companies and back by American government for American interests. The NWO is America
promoting its predatory form of capitalism across the globe. Britain succumbed to this under Thatcher when the last remaining Socialist principles of
Britain were ripped up and we bought into the 'greed is good' mantra. The NWO agenda that you see largely promoted (and on this site) is the form
promoted by right wing propaganda with the aim of instilling the fear of uniting people. They want to keep us divided, the old principal 'divide and
rule'. America has the true NWO agenda of uniting the world through money and capitalism, under its control and in its image. You can see this
happening everywhere under your very nose, far more than any construed European NWO incidences. Of course I’m not saying some elements of Europe are
not involved, but they are not in control. They are not the masters, and neither is the U.N.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.